I don't know if you just reasoned that out or if you read it on a discussion board somewhere, but I have to tell you that it's completely wrong. EVERY book that is now in your Bible was in general use in the Chistian churches of the Christian world by AD 100 and almost all of them much before that. The oldest of Paul's epistles was written within three or four years of the Ascension.
Yes, I probably will "fail" to answer about six questions at once and immediately.
However, you are doing what so many others mistakenly do--confuse the process of identifying Scripture with the Scriptures themselves. We have them; the whole Christian world accepts them. There is no point in trying to find fault with them in every way possible. And the alternative, i.e., Tradition? No one here who touts it so enthusiastically can even tell us what it is!
No he does not. That does not appear there at all. He speaks of 'traditions,' not 'Oral Tradition' as an alternative to Scripture. You can't even tell me one doctrine that Paul is supposed by you to be telling people to hold to, can you? No. That's it has nothing to do with doctrine. He may well have been saying to be sure you guys keep going to synagogue regularly--as is your tradition. That's no method for inventing new doctrines!
Well, that makes no sense at all.
Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, all Catholics arguing over whose version of 'Tradition' is the right one. Obviously that Tradition is no guide to truth when that's the case.